J
James924
Guest
Does anyone know if the Traditional Latin Mass is offered in Japan near Kadena AB or in England near RAF Mildenhall?
Thanks,
Thanks,
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Mark1970
Guest
With regard to England, if you know the diocese you could try looking at the website www.lms.org.uk. If you navigate around, you should find a Mass listing that gives all TLM’s the organisation knows about, by diocese. If you want a modern rite Latin Mass, if you look for “Association for the Latin Liturgy”, their website may be able to help you.
J
Jehoshua
Guest
Here’s a traditional mass directory which lists places you can go to a latin mass in a whole bunch of countries, including Japan and the UK.
catholicapologetics.info/library/directory/index.htm
the format of the site is really bad, but it gets the job done.
catholicapologetics.info/library/directory/index.htm
the format of the site is really bad, but it gets the job done.
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
If you don’t mind a fair old drive, Westminster Cathedral in London celebrates Latin Mass every day at 10.30 AM.
M
Mark1970
Guest
Looking at the list of Masses on the link, I think it may only covers SSPX Masses, I know of several Latin Masses that aren’t given on the list. The following link will also give most non-SSPX Masses: lms.org.uk/find_a_mass/mass_listings.Here’s a traditional mass directory which lists places you can go to a latin mass in a whole bunch of countries, including Japan and the UK.
catholicapologetics.info/library/directory/index.htm
the format of the site is really bad, but it gets the job done.
J
Jehoshua
Guest
hmm, i know it lists SSPX masses, but i know for a fact it did and perhaps still does list valid masses as well since it listed a community which existed under the indult and still does exist.
But i looked again after your comment and i could not find that listing again, perhaps they removed it because it is canonically regular (not sspx). In no way would i condone attending a canonically irregular mass. Thanks for the lookout, i would never have noticed otherwise that it was primarily canonically irregular.
But i looked again after your comment and i could not find that listing again, perhaps they removed it because it is canonically regular (not sspx). In no way would i condone attending a canonically irregular mass. Thanks for the lookout, i would never have noticed otherwise that it was primarily canonically irregular.
B
bayernfan
Guest
Just attend the SSPX with the intent to attend Mass, and not be “schismatic,” and you’re fine.hmm, i know it lists SSPX masses, but i know for a fact it did and perhaps still does list valid masses as well since it listed a community which existed under the indult and still does exist.
But i looked again after your comment and i could not find that listing again, perhaps they removed it because it is canonically regular (not sspx). In no way would i condone attending a canonically irregular mass. Thanks for the lookout, i would never have noticed otherwise that it was primarily canonically irregular.
The SSPX are as Catholic as you and me. And, they’re just as Catholic as Card. Mahoney.
J
Jehoshua
Guest
Ah but the SSPX are in a state of schism from the universal church, therefore it is preferable to attend any mass, OF or EF in a catholic church in communion with Rome than attend an SSPX mass.
That said if there is no other option (no catholic church available) than it is acceptable to attend an SSPX mass, just as it is acceptable to attend an eastern orthodox church to recieve communion if no other option is available.
Oh and though their practices are catholic they are not “Catholic” as they are not in communion as of yet with the universal church.
That said if there is no other option (no catholic church available) than it is acceptable to attend an SSPX mass, just as it is acceptable to attend an eastern orthodox church to recieve communion if no other option is available.
Oh and though their practices are catholic they are not “Catholic” as they are not in communion as of yet with the universal church.
B
bayernfan
Guest
You got any magisterial documents for these claims?Ah but the SSPX are in a state of schism from the universal church, therefore it is preferable to attend any mass, OF or EF in a catholic church in communion with Rome than attend an SSPX mass.
That said if there is no other option (no catholic church available) than it is acceptable to attend an SSPX mass, just as it is acceptable to attend an eastern orthodox church to recieve communion if no other option is available.
Oh and though their practices are catholic they are not “Catholic” as they are not in communion as of yet with the universal church.
In 1970 they were founded with approval from the bishop. Vatican officials have said the Society is an internal matter - internal to the CHURCH. Ergo, Catholic.
None of your statements are true.
J
Jehoshua
Guest
The Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry, if this isn;t a state of schism i don;t know what is.
They were indeed founded by a bishop who then decided to ordain other bishops without approval and got himself excommunicated. After this invalid ordination Then the Pope stated that, since schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751), the consecration “constituted a schismatic act”, and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code, it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved. This is found in the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei.
Thus by adhering to these invalid ordinations to the epicopacy they are indeed schismatic ergo, not Catholic (although as i said previously they are indeed catholic (lower case) in practice.)
They were indeed founded by a bishop who then decided to ordain other bishops without approval and got himself excommunicated. After this invalid ordination Then the Pope stated that, since schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751), the consecration “constituted a schismatic act”, and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code, it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved. This is found in the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei.
Thus by adhering to these invalid ordinations to the epicopacy they are indeed schismatic ergo, not Catholic (although as i said previously they are indeed catholic (lower case) in practice.)
B
bayernfan
Guest
Again, none of these arguments hold water.The Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry, if this isn;t a state of schism i don;t know what is.
They were indeed founded by a bishop who then decided to ordain other bishops without approval and got himself excommunicated. After this invalid ordination Then the Pope stated that, since schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751), the consecration “constituted a schismatic act”, and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code, it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved. This is found in the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei.
Thus by adhering to these invalid ordinations to the epicopacy they are indeed schismatic ergo, not Catholic (although as i said previously they are indeed catholic (lower case) in practice.)
They claim there is a state of emergency, which permits them to do this, and supplies them with extraordinary jurisdiction.
They were founded by a bishop with approval from the local ordinary.
The “automatic excomm’s” were said to not have existed by Pope B16.
They believe the Pope is Pope, they believe everything Catholics believed in 1962.
Ecclesia Dei holds no water, any more, having been supplanted by Summorum Pontificum and B16’s letter about excommunication (funny, though, you want to talk about Ecclesia Dei, when bishops worldwide fought tooth and nail against it, and never implemented it in their dioceses, yet they remained “Catholic”, as you say).
They are Catholic as much as we are. Or, better yet, as I’ve said before, they are just as Catholic as Card. Mahoney or Abp. Weakland.
J
Jehoshua
Guest
And yet Benedict XVI had to revoke the excommunications as is his right. However they still have not got valid standing in the clergy. Just because a bishop or society is approved by the local ordinary does not somehow preclude it from falling into schism or even heresy. (although the SSPX are not in heresy).
Ecclesia dei is not revoked by the holy fathers wish that SSPX once again rejoins the church in full communion, indeed his de-excommunications show his mercy, however they do not somehow revoke their schismatic state, just as the mutual de-excommunications with the Orthodox doesn;t revoke the schismatic state.
Anyways since all you have is your own personal opinion and picking and choosing what church documents youll believe ill give you some more things the church has said about SSPX.
On 24 August 1996, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts responded to an enquiry from the Bishop of Sion (Switzerland), which had been referred to the Council by the Congregation for Bishops, by expressing its judgment that “in the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements” (internal and external) for formal adherence to the schism “have been met”.
On 19 March 1996, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz imposed excommunication on Catholics in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska who after 15 May 1996 remained or became members of any of 12 associations, including the Society of St. Pius X, as well as the Freemasons and Planned Parenthood. One of the associations, Call to Action, appealed the bishop’s decree, but the Holy See rejected the appeal. (funny that the Holy See didn’t reject the bishops judgement that catholics in his diocese were excommunicated for joining SSPX) [thankfully with the popes de-excommunications this no longer applies in fullness i believe in regards to SSPX]
In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. (ergo they are not in full communion and thus in schism, even if only informal)
Thus evidence, magisterial evidence (which your argument so far has a total lack) shows that they are still in a state of schism, they are not validly ordained, they have no canonical status and despite Summorum pontificum they remain seperate from the ordinary and universal magisterium. If anything they should have immediately reconciled with the Church and where necessary undergone valid ordination but instead they remained seperate and therefore in schism.
Oh and ill rather go with the Judgement of the Church regarding extraordinary jurisdiction rather than the mere opininion of a society that is in a state of at the very least informal schism which is schism nonetheless.
Ecclesia dei is not revoked by the holy fathers wish that SSPX once again rejoins the church in full communion, indeed his de-excommunications show his mercy, however they do not somehow revoke their schismatic state, just as the mutual de-excommunications with the Orthodox doesn;t revoke the schismatic state.
Anyways since all you have is your own personal opinion and picking and choosing what church documents youll believe ill give you some more things the church has said about SSPX.
On 24 August 1996, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts responded to an enquiry from the Bishop of Sion (Switzerland), which had been referred to the Council by the Congregation for Bishops, by expressing its judgment that “in the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements” (internal and external) for formal adherence to the schism “have been met”.
On 19 March 1996, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz imposed excommunication on Catholics in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska who after 15 May 1996 remained or became members of any of 12 associations, including the Society of St. Pius X, as well as the Freemasons and Planned Parenthood. One of the associations, Call to Action, appealed the bishop’s decree, but the Holy See rejected the appeal. (funny that the Holy See didn’t reject the bishops judgement that catholics in his diocese were excommunicated for joining SSPX) [thankfully with the popes de-excommunications this no longer applies in fullness i believe in regards to SSPX]
In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. (ergo they are not in full communion and thus in schism, even if only informal)
Thus evidence, magisterial evidence (which your argument so far has a total lack) shows that they are still in a state of schism, they are not validly ordained, they have no canonical status and despite Summorum pontificum they remain seperate from the ordinary and universal magisterium. If anything they should have immediately reconciled with the Church and where necessary undergone valid ordination but instead they remained seperate and therefore in schism.
Oh and ill rather go with the Judgement of the Church regarding extraordinary jurisdiction rather than the mere opininion of a society that is in a state of at the very least informal schism which is schism nonetheless.
J
Jehoshua
Guest
btw i would be interested if you have any magisterial evidence regarding your claims. Thus far it seems your arguments hold no water due to lack of any evidence other than pure opinion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.